Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state and has a no-duty-to-retreat law (commonly referred to as "Stand Your Ground"). Under the Self-Defense Act, a person may...
Reviewed by Will Luker, Founder of CCW Hub. USCCA Training Counselor, USCCA Certified Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, Law Enforcement.
Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state and has a no-duty-to-retreat law (commonly referred to as "Stand Your Ground"). Under the Self-Defense Act, a person may use deadly force or non-deadly force, with no duty to retreat, anywhere he or she has the legal right to be, as long as the statutory conditions of MCL 780.972 are met. Michigan law also provides a separate statutory civil immunity for individuals who use force in compliance with the Self-Defense Act. That immunity is created by MCL 600.2922b, not by the Self-Defense Act sections themselves.
An individual who has not and is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be, with no duty to retreat, if the person honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual (MCL 780.972(2)).
An individual who has not and is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be, with no duty to retreat, if either of the following applies (MCL 780.972(1)):
The Self-Defense Act applies the same standards to the defense of another individual. MCL 780.972(1) authorizes deadly force, and MCL 780.972(2) authorizes non-deadly force, to defend "himself or herself or another individual" under the same honest-and-reasonable-belief standard. The defender stands in the shoes of the person being defended. Michigan courts have long recognized defense of others as coextensive with self-defense (see People v. Kurr, 253 Mich App 317 (2002)).
Michigan provides a statutory civil immunity under MCL 600.2922b. By the text of that statute, an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.972) is immune from civil liability for damages caused by that use of force. The immunity runs both to the individual against whom force was used and to any person claiming damages based on his or her relationship to that individual (MCL 600.2922b(a) and (b)). The statute ties immunity specifically to compliance with MCL 780.972. It does not extend immunity to force used only under the common law of self-defense.
MCL 600.2922c addresses attorney fees. The court shall award actual attorney fees and costs to an individual who is sued for civil damages for allegedly using deadly force or force other than deadly force if the court determines that the individual used force in compliance with section 2 of the Self-Defense Act and that the individual is immune from civil liability under MCL 600.2922b. The trigger is that specific judicial finding, not a general "prevailing party" outcome.
The Self-Defense Act is codified at MCL 780.971 to 780.974 (Act 309 of 2006) and is not part of the Michigan Penal Code. Its sections operate as follows:
None of these three sections creates civil immunity. Civil immunity is a separate statute (MCL 600.2922b), and the related attorney-fee provision is MCL 600.2922c.
Michigan law creates a rebuttable presumption that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the Self-Defense Act had an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death, sexual assault, or great bodily harm would occur, when both of the following apply (MCL 780.951(1)):
The presumption is not limited to deadly force. By its terms it applies to both deadly force and force other than deadly force.
MCL 780.951(2) lists the situations in which this presumption does not apply. These include, among others, when the person against whom force is used had the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle (and no qualifying no-contact order is in place); when the person being removed is a child, grandchild, or other person in the lawful custody or guardianship of the person against whom force is used; when the person using force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the premises or vehicle to further a crime; when the person against whom force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance of official duties in accordance with law; or when the person against whom force is used is a spouse, former spouse, dating partner, co-parent, or current or former household member and the person using force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor (MCL 780.951(2)(a)-(e)).
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024). Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), established the historical-tradition test for Second Amendment claims. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), then applied Bruen to uphold the federal domestic-violence-restraining-order firearm prohibition at 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), confirming that not every firearm disability fails Bruen's test. Practitioners advising on use-of-force or firearm-disability questions should be familiar with both cases.
This page covers one part of our Michigan concealed carry guide.
Read the complete Michigan guideBrowse local instructors offering state-approved training in your area. Book online, complete your training, and get one step closer to your concealed carry permit.